Allahabad High Court On Pendency Of Criminal Cases In UP: State Government & Police Primarily Responsible, Not Judicial Officers

While invoking the “Tarikh pe Tarikh… milti hai to sirf tarikh” dialogue from the famous 1993 Bollywood film Damini, the Allahabad High Court, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Mevalal Prajapati Vs State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11476 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC105379 that was pronounced just recently on May 7, 2026, minced absolutely no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the massive pendency of criminal cases in district courts is not merely the fault of judicial officers, but primarily that of the State Government and the police.

To put it differently, the Court was unequivocal in holding that judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh are frustrated because they are unable to perform their duties due to insufficient staff, non-cooperation from the police, faulty investigations and improper forensic reports.

What causes maximum heartburn is to see that the Allahabad High Court, which is the biggest High Court not only in India alone, not only in Asia alone, but in the whole world and all the continents, has the maximum number of pending cases among all the states with more than 12 lakhs pending in the Allahabad High Court and still has just one High Court bench created at Lucknow so close to the Allahabad High Court way back in July 1948.

West UP, which owes the majority of the pending cases of UP, has not even a single High Court bench or, to say the very least, not even a circuit bench, even though the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission, headed by a former Supreme Court judge appointed by the centre itself, recommended a permanent seat for a High Court bench in West UP about 50 years ago, yet not even a circuit bench has been created to date.

But that is a separate issue, and I shall dwell some other time on it, as it will consume a lot of space.

Background Of The Bail Application

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by the single judge bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deswal of the Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:

“Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime no. 290/2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 309(6), 317(2), Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.), Police Station - Husenganj, District Fatehpur.”

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Issues Highlighted

To put things in perspective, the bench envisages in para 3 that:

“This matter was heard on 07.04.2026, 15.04.2026 and 24.04.206. On that date, the Court found that though a blood-stained screw driver was sent to FSL examination, no query was made by the I.O. whether the blood found on the screw driver belonged to the deceased.”

“Therefore, this Court directed the Director, FSL, to appear before it to assist the Court vide order dated 24.04.2026, and the matter was posted for 29.04.2026.”

“In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2026, the Director FSL U.P., Lko, was present on 29.04.2026.”

“On that date, the Director FSL informed the Court that though the DNA profile can be generated within 3 to 4 days if blood sample is fresh and even DNA profile can also be generated from disintegrated blood sample, if the same was collected carefully and high-end instruments are available in the lab and at present FSLs in UP are facing problem not only the shortage of staff but also of latest machines required for forensic and ballistic test.”

“It was also informed by the Director, FSL, that though 12 FSLs have been functioning in the State of U.P., only 8 FSLs have the facility to generate a DNA profile.”

“It was also informed by the Director, FSL, U.P., that, as of date, U.P. FSL is not an autonomous body under the Home Department but is part of the police department; for that reason, it is not administratively free to procure instruments or appoint staff.”

“It was further informed that, though the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, has sent several letters to the State Government to make the FSL in U.P. an autonomous body under the Home Department, the process is still ongoing.”

“Therefore, this Court again directed the Director General of Police as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., to appear before this Court through V.C. to assist the Court along with the Director, FSL, U.P. vide order dated 29.04.2026.”

Major FSL Problems Identified By The Court

Judicial Officers Facing Serious Challenges

Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para. 17 that:

“An Independent, fair and transparent judicial system is the backbone of a mature democracy, and a judicial system that itself depends on the mercy of the State Government for sufficient staff and execution of court process will become like a government department struggling for basic needs and infrastructures.”

“Many young judicial officers, who joined the judiciary though very honest and hardworking, having a motto to dispense justice after entering judicial service, found themselves unable to perform because of insufficient staff, non-cooperation by the police in the execution of court processes (summons, warrants, etc.), and faulty investigation and improper FSL reports.”

“Consequently, they became frustrated and looked to the High Court for remedial measures, but the High Court itself cannot do anything, as it is the State Government that must provide basic infrastructure, staff, the FSL report, and police cooperation.”

Core Reasons For Delay In Criminal Cases

• Insufficient court staff.
• Non-cooperation by police authorities.
• Delay in execution of summons and warrants.
• Faulty police investigations.
• Improper or delayed FSL reports.
• Lack of modern forensic infrastructure.
• Administrative dependence on state machinery.

Security Concerns Of Judicial Officers

Adding more to it, the bench further points out in para 18 that:

“In U.P., the personal security of judicial officers of district courts is also a major concern.”

“On many occasions, criminals gave open threats to judicial officers even in courts during their convictions.”

“Sometimes, when judicial officers visit the marketplace or the public place outside the court, they are indirectly intimidated through veiled threat or otherwise by the criminals, but judicial officers, in the absence of a personal security officer (P.S.O.), used to ignore it to avoid conflict and also to save themselves from being highlighted in the media.”

“This also affects the judicial function of district court judges, especially the issuance of conviction orders against hardcore criminals.”

“In U.P., except for the District Judge, the first Additional District Judge, and the C.J.M., PSOs to other judicial officers are not provided. This is unlike Punjab and Haryana, where all judicial officers are provided PSOs.”

Comparison Of Judicial Security Arrangements

“Tarikh Pe Tarikh” Observation By The Court

Most rationally, the Bench lays bare in para. 19, pointing out that:

“A filmy dialogue from the film ‘Damini’ released in the year 1993 that ‘Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh Milti Rahi hai..... lekin Insaf Nahi Mila My Lord, Insaf Nahi Mila! Mili Hai to Sirf Tarikh’.”

“This dialogue became very popular because it was the perception of a common man, but the reason for it, of course, is not the judicial officer alone, but the State and its police, as a judicial officer can’t decide the cases without sufficient staff and the cooperation of police to ensure the presence of the accused, witnesses and a proper FSL report, etc.”

Key Takeaways From The Allahabad High Court Judgment

• The Allahabad High Court held the state government and police primarily responsible for the pendency of criminal cases.
• The court highlighted the severe shortage of staff and forensic infrastructure.
• Judicial officers are facing frustration due to inability to function effectively.
• Faulty investigations and delayed FSL reports are major causes of delay.
• Security threats to judicial officers remain a serious concern in Uttar Pradesh.
• The court emphasised that justice delivery cannot improve without systemic reforms.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court, through this landmark judgement, has sent a strong and unambiguous message that the burden of mounting pendency in criminal cases cannot be placed solely upon judicial officers.

The judgement highlights the urgent need for adequate staffing, police cooperation, forensic reforms, judicial security and administrative independence of forensic laboratories in Uttar Pradesh.

By candidly acknowledging the structural failures affecting the justice delivery system, the Court has once again brought national attention to the deep-rooted institutional issues responsible for delay in criminal trials and denial of timely justice.

Source: User-provided document. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Allahabad High Court Directions On Criminal Case Delays And Forensic Reforms

Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para. 26 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement, postulating precisely that:

“After considering the suggestions of the Director General of Police, the Secretary (Home) and the Director FSL, this Court summarises its directions as follows;”

Summary Of Court Directions Issued By The Bench

Court Observations On Bail Rejection

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 29 that:

“Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the last location of the applicant as per CDR as well as recovery of a blood-stained screw driver, which substantiates the injury found on the post mortem report of the deceased and recovery of e-rickshaw on the pointing out of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, at this stage.”

Do note, the bench notes in para 30 that:

“Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.”

Directions Issued To Government And Judicial Authorities

It is also worth noting that the Bench then notes in para. 31 that:

“Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary (Law)/L.R, U.P., D.G.P. U.P., Additional Chief Secretary (Home) U.P. and the Director JTRI, Lucknow.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 32, noting that:

“The Principal Secretary (Law) is further directed to place this order before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, U.P., along with its summary for his perusal.”

Finally, the bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 33 that:

“Director, JTRI is also directed to sensitise the Judicial Officers about relevant Rules of BNSS Rules, 2024 as well as E-Processes Rules, 2026 regarding generation and electronic transmission of E-summons, E-warrants and other court’s processes.”

Key Takeaways From The Allahabad High Court Order

• The Allahabad High Court has held that delays in criminal cases cannot be attributed solely to judges.
• The court observed that both the state machinery and police authorities share equal responsibility for delays.
• The judgement strongly emphasises forensic reforms, technological integration and police accountability.
• The court has recommended adoption of AI-powered speech-to-text technology for witness statements.
• The Bench has stressed effective implementation of BNSS Rules, 2024 and E-Processes Rules, 2026.
• The judgement seeks modernisation of investigation, judicial administration and electronic court processes.

Conclusion On Criminal Justice Reforms And Case Delay Accountability

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear that the state and the police have to be blamed equally for inordinate delays in cases, and it is not just judges alone who are culpable for it. We also see that the Court has suggested a most commendable slew of reforms to tackle criminal case delays, and they must be implemented at the earliest! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
 s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
 Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.